On 15 Oct, 04:01, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I'm not asking for a view, I'm asking for objective evidence. So far,
> none has been presented. No one has even attempted to present any.
Yet you keep on demanding it, when it should be clear to you, if not
to them, that there is none. To them, there IS evidence - and my
point is that if you hope to bring them round by making them realise
that there is no evidence then you have misunderstood the nature of
belief.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be making the demand. I'm saying
the making the demand will have absolutely no effect on anyone.
> No, it's a matter of presenting objective evidence. Until that
> happens, there's nothing to discuss about what might happen.
And yet the discussions roll on and on and on and on and on and on
and... on.
> Yes, really.
Read on - THEN object.
> > Most of the 'crap', as you've pointed out, doesn't
> >present objective evidence,
>
> NONE of it does.
Yes, Al - I'm agreeing with there... Read on...
> > and doesn't require it.
>
> ALL claims of objective reality DO.
So you say. And you're probably right. But the fact still remains
that the absence of evidence is not... Like I said, you know the
rest.
> And that's all I'm asking for - objective evidence to back up claims
> of objective existence.
And you're not going to get it. Not now - not ever. And you know
that.
So what now? What's the next stage of the plan? More demands for
evidence you know isn't there that still aren't going to convince
believers that they don't have it?
> >What we have, if we
> >look solely at the evidence we've got, is 'no reason to believe'.
>
> Exactly. There isn't, and there never has been, any reason to make up
> gods.
Really? But by your argument that's exactly what everyone who
believes in a god has done. You're saying that all these disparate
cultures throughout millennia of history have repeatedly done so for
no reason?
There's no evidence of gods, Al. Therefore, there's no reason to
believe in gods. But, as I've said, those who DO believe, believe
they see reason. And that's precisely why this tactic of demanding
evidence is onto a loser. You will only serve to convince those
already convinced.
> Again - I'm asking for evidence, not viewing.
You missed or ignored my point. Even objective evidence has to be
viewed and interpreted through subjective perceptions. Everything we
perceive depends on the function of our perceptions.
> If someone comes up
> with some evidence we can THEN discuss other things about that
> evidence. Until then there's nothing TO discuss.
Yet - as I said - we continue to discuss. Logically, we should agree
mutual silence.
> If you have some, post it. If not, there's nothing to discuss.
I have never claimed to have any - yet we discuss.
> Of course. What an irrational person might do has little or no
> bearing on what a rational person will do.
And yet so much of our definition of 'irrational' depends on our
subjective perceptions. You, for example, have suggested that
religion in itself is a mark of insanity - yet psychological
professionals do not generally agree with you. There is no DSM entry
for 'religion'. It might well be argued that many of its
manifestations appear - voices, compulsions, and so on - yet the
psychiatric community have never felt inclined to categorise the
obvious bracket of 'religion' as a mental illness: a claim atheists
make frequently. But then, isn't the claim of mental illness
regularly made in Usenet against those who don't agree?
> The same thing you think of when someone says "Captain Kirk" - someone
> else's fiction.
I think you saw my question: how do you visualise the concept of
'god'? I suspect you don't imagine a deity in a Starfleet uniform.
> If your definition of 'god' is the one the dictionary uses, we don't
> believe in your gods.
>From dictionary.com: "any deified person or object".
And yet Bill, for one, tells us repeatedly that God is a male creator
of the world, all-powerful, who sits in Heaven and threatens us with
Hell.
You can see why I ask the question of you. What do YOU see when
someone says 'god'?
> If you have objective evidence that your gods
> objectively exist, post it.
You see this is where we hit difficulties because you assume you know
what a 'god' is to me. If I say to you that a 'god' to me is a
representation of an element of nature, or human nature, personified,
then you can see that I have objective evidence for those things which
my gods personify. You can see the sea; the sky; the ground under
your feet; the Sun, the Moon, and so on. You know that love exists;
you know that hate exists; you know that all these powerful forces
exist around us.
What you DON'T have is a way to see them as I see them. If you did,
you would. It's as simple as that, and that's why I don't preach to
you. It's not my business how you see the world, any more than it's
your place to tell me how I should see it. It depends, as does
everything from my point of view, on my subjective perceptions. Thus,
there is no objective evidence, and you are under no obligation to
accept, to consider, or to respect, my point of view. What I would
suggest IS required in a free country, is that you extend me the right
to see things as I see them, and to discuss my views with those who
express a wish to discuss them, religious or not.
> >> You don't understand either 'evolution' or 'theories of evolution'.
An
> >> evolutionary theory isn't necessarily a theory ABOUT evolution.
>
> >That's why I didn't SAY 'an evolutionary theory'. I said
> >'evolutionary theory.
>
> Which may or may not have anything to do with evolution.
So you need not have raised the objection above. But after your post
above I do see why you did: I suspect you think I'm a Creationist.
> > As in 'the Theory of Evolution'.
>
> WHICH theory of evolution? There are many of them. But evolution
> ISN'T a theory, it's an observation.
Yes, Al - you don't need to play silly buggers with me. Evolution is
an observed process; the Theory of Evolution is the current scientific
explanation of why and how that process works. Again, I'm not a
Creationist.
> Then you have a problem with English, because your words say that you
> don't understand evolution. "The theory of evolution" expresses a
> lack of knowledge of what evolution is and what theories of evolution
> there are.
I suspect that's more down to a need to argue with the Creationist on
your part. But as I said, I'm not a Creationist.
> Again - I'm not asking for perception, I'm asking for objective
> evidence that the gods theists claim objectively exist really do.
Perception, Al, is all you can have. Ever. That's the point I'm
trying to make. Even 'objective evidence' has to be viewed through
your eyes and interpreted according to your perspective.
> I'm leaving all that up for those who aren't familiar with it. I'll
> just say "the man in the moon". That irrational people aren't
> rational isn't news.
Nice dodge. C'mon, Al. You have got more about you than this,
surely? You can't honestly be telling me you don't see the
comparison? That even objective evidence has to be passed through the
filter of perception? You're right: irrational people aren't
rational, as you keep saying - but that doesn't change the fact that
simply believing or not believing a thing doesn't mean you won't act
irrationally when something comes along that contradicts your
established point of view.
> Again - all I'm asking is that people who make claims of objective
> existence (which means that they're claiming that they have objective
> evidence) post the evidence they're claiming to have. No one ever
> has.
And you know that they won't. So it's time, surely, for the next
stage?
> You're comparing apples to ducks. Rational people accept reality,
> irrational people don't admit that anything that contradicts their
> irrationality IS reality.
And which category would you put yourself in? No, I'm not being funny
- I'm asking because it should be obvious that every person considers
themselves rational, even when others don't. Consider the various
kooks and nutters we get in these groups trying to sell the latest
proof of God, or whatever it might be. Do you think they think of
themselves as irrational?
> >> I know so - because I know what 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' mean.
> >> That an omniscient omnipotent god is impossible is irrelevant.
> >Okay, I'll concede that such a being would be ABLE to do this.
> >Perhaps I should have asked what reason we have to assume that 'he'
> >would? It is, after all, the crux of many of Bill's arguments: that
> >'God' is a jealous god and would want to crush belief in anyone else.
>
> He's also defined as being omnibenevolent. That doesn't square with
> cru****ng belief.
So don't we have an answer to Bill's question, then?
> It's more that he's responding to the theists who post in alt.atheism
> - aside from the occasional Moslem 'street-corner thunderer', all of
> them are Christian of one sect or another.
And I respond to Bill - from my point of view, HE is the initiator.
But I respond not because he opposes Christianity, but because he
posts into a group I'm in making sweeping claims about religion and
the religious. That's me. And if someone turns up out of nowhere
demanding something I've never offered and telling me I'm insane
because I don't provide it, well... wouldn't YOU object?
> God (upper-case G) is the name of the Christian god, so how can we be
> talking about a non-Christian God?
Might I introduce YHWH and Allah, both referred to on occasion as
'God' and yet neither of them the Christian God?
> The nature of reality is that things that objectively exist leave
> objective evidence. It doesn't matter whether the god is concerned
> with providing it or not - his existence requires it, due to the
> meanings of the words being used.
Perhaps His existence DOES require it, and perhaps He leaves it - but
why would we assume that we would be able to see it? Are we gods? Or
are we simply organisms that have evolved to a particular biological
specification?
Again, we return to the same point: absence of evidence blah blah
blah.
> >Why would we assume we have such great im****tance in such a vast
universe?
>
> For rationality? For reality? Great im****tance for what?
>
> Why would we assume it was im****tant for him to conceal his existence
> from us?
When did you last make a specific effort to reveal yourself to an
amoeba and explain what you are?
|
